Moore slams doc “vanity projects” vying for Oscars

Michael Moore (pictured), governor of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences’ Documentary Branch, has hit out at a number of docs that he says have secured Oscar eligibility this year, accusing certain filmmakers of spending more than $US20,000 to qualify “vanity projects.”

Addressing his “fellow docmakers” and Academy members in a series of Tweets, Moore said that more than 130 documentaries had qualified for assessment for next year’s Academy Awards, which takes place on February 24 in Hollywood.

To become eligible, films need to fulfill a number of requirements, including a week-long theatrical run in New York or LA, and a review in either The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times. However, Moore said many docs are abusing the eligibility criteria requirements.

“Once again, scores of “documentaries” which didn’t get a REAL theatrical run have “bought” their eligibility to qualify for the Oscars,” Moore Tweeted. “Dozens of TV movies & “vanity projects” spend $20K or more to buy a screen for a week to “qualify.” This favors only those with big bucks.”

Moore added: “Over 130 “documentaries” have “qualified” 4 this yr’s Oscars. But as u all know, 130 docs were not released in theaters this yr. So now what?”

Among the new rules introduced earlier this year – designed to cut down the number of overall docs that became eligible for an Oscar nomination and give big box office docs a better chance at landing a nomination – was the introduction of a rule stating that the full Academy will vote for the best doc feature Oscar winner, and not just the doc branch.

In addition, the Academy doc feature shortlist, and later the five nominees, will be determined by a vote of the full doc branch, and not just small teams. Docs must also secure a review from either The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times to qualify.

Earlier this year, Moore highlighted HBO as a key culprit in submitting TV docs that were never intended for proper theatrical runs for Oscar consideration.

Discussing the problem as he saw it, he told Indiewire: “If The King’s Speech is first shown on HBO, it’s eligible for an Emmy. Oscars are for real movies distributed in theaters. Senna and Into the Abyss and The Interrupters were made to be in movie theaters. Their slots were taken away by films intended as TV movies.”

Moore had stated after the changes that he expected the number of feature docs to qualify for this year to be about 60 – a reduction of more than 50% on the 124 that qualified in 2011.

However, Moore’s tweets regarding the more than 130 docs that will have to be considered for the 15-long doc feature Oscar shortlist suggest the Academy’s efforts to reduce the number of qualifying titles have been unsuccessful.

Thoughts on Michael Moore’s Twitter remarks? Post them in the comments section below…

“Vanity projects” are films made to glorify a person without critical perspective. If Moore is talking about theaters such as Quad which enable a filmmaker to screen for $20,000 – that is an option for poor filmmakers. The real cost to show in theaters is about $75,000 to $150,000. If HBO exec-produces a doc, that is a huge benefit for a filmmaker. Documentaries need all the help they can get. Moore should look at the rule requiring a review in one of two newspapers in the USA. That seems far more limiting.

UK doc publicist

Is this real or more of Moore’s satirical humour? Either way, I’m intrigued to know how many non North American documentaries are reviewed by the NY or LA Times or how many trees have to be felled to provide the paper for their review sections.

JWC

I think that a far better way to do this would be for the Academy documentary branch to hold a festival for documentaries and to look at other qualifying festivals (Sundance, Telluride, etc.). Allow those festivals to cull the herd. Have the documentary branch select nominees from those docs that make the cut in those festivals. I don’t care if HBO or Comedy Central financed the doc, or if it got a theatrical run anywhere. I do care about quality. The Oscars should look only to the goal of nominating the selecting the documentaries that represent the best achievement in the medium.

I get Moore’s point on network funded TV films, but not all Quad or Docuweeks films are vanity or deep-pocket films. A lot of them are struggling filmmakers just trying to find a path to consideration.